I don’t think you accurately summarize the article. For example, you say he describes a trauma junkie as: “Anyone sharing their trauma or cautioning about causing trauma.”
This is not how he describes the concept. Instead a trauma junkie is someone who:
“Bends every gathering and interaction into a hunt for the problematic elements or people within it.”
“Loudly centers themselves as leading the charge to making a place or group or scene “safe” for everyone.”
“[Recasts] normal interactions as traumatic ordeals so there will be a victimization to rally against.”
I do think it would be genuinely concerning if prominent rationalists were generally dismissive of sexual assault and harassment. But that’s not what the article is about. Instead, the author is dismissing people who describe “brief awkward conversations” as traumatic.
Hi Nathan, thanks for the additional contextualisation.
I want to make it very clear that I am not against a productive and reasoned discussion on how best to manage trauma discussions within a social group, including on the possibility of someone claiming to be a victim in bad faith. But this article never gets to be that because it only considers the one scenario where the supposed victim is acting in bad faith.
The problem is precisely that the author never really considers the possibility that the “trauma junkies” might in fact be acting in good faith, until the very last section of the article (‘word of caution’), at which point he remarkably still advocates for banishing them from the group just like you would a ‘violent psychotic’ or ‘compulsive rapist’. There is no consideration of tradeoffs, e.g. what effect this may have on the so-called ‘trauma junky’ if they turned out to be sincere . Of course, we know that in such cases, the effects are quite disastrous, and you can read Fran’s recent post CEA’s response to sexual harassment to see what that’s like. So the article by Eneasz Brodski is not really an interesting, nuanced, substantiated and earnest discussion on a delicate topic, such as one that might be produced using a scout’s mindset, or indeed rationalist ideals. For an example of something that I think is exactly that, read Fran’s post, and you will find in it concrete examples where people who do think of themselves as rationalists and Effective Altruists did make mistakes that resulted in the effective dismissal of a serious case of sexual harassment. She explains the situation with a remarkable amount of calm and detachment and did so out of a genuine desire to see how similar situations can be handled better in the future.
I do think it would be genuinely concerning if prominent rationalists were generally dismissive of sexual assault and harassment.
Well… You may now be concerned.
Aside from the examples from Fran above, you might be interested in this article, which lists “views discussed involve racism, sexism, fascism, and other troubling ideologies” expressed at an EA afterparty. Full disclosure, I haven’t read this article in full, and I’m not fully briefed on the whole Manifold/Manifest drama from 2024, but from a brief skim the article seems to list quite a few ‘interesting’ statements from a few prominent rationalists (most of whom I must admit I had never heard of because I am quite new to learning about this… and don’t really feel a huge compulsion to explore, tbh). See for example this excerpt from Richard Hanania’s article The EA Movement Will Be Anti-Woke or Die:
As I’ve previously written, there are certain psychological dynamics that explain why wokeness has conquered western institutions and movements, and only the ones with antibodies to women’s tears will avoid drowning in them.
Does EA have the right antibodies? I once assumed it did based on its ideological and intellectual commitments. But I’m now realizing that the main reason rationalism has been relatively unwoke so far is that the movement has been new, and new movements attract adherents that are disproportionately highly intelligent, non-conformist, and male. But as it has grown in status, the movement has diversified, which has brought all the usual problems.
(Again, full disclosure, haven’t particularly felt that keen to read the full article, so I haven’t. I don’t know who this Richard Hanania is in much detail but he clearly is quite involved in the EA / Rationalist community).
These dangerous rationalisations of harmful -ims are not surprising to me as I don’t place ‘rationalists’ a cut above any other category of people in their ability to reason and avoid bias. Even when one tries really hard not to make a mistake, everyone makes mistakes and no one is above making a mistake. But mistakes can have very real negative ethical consequences, which is why I advocated for calling them out early, in a genuine, respectful, and earnest manner in order for us to all flourish as a group. ⭐️
lol how did i know men would be showing up to defend this disgusting article
from details in it i know it is about what i wrote about being sexually assaulted and cornered in a music venue at Vibecamp 2
after I brought it up at VC2 decompression somewhere there interrupted to talk about the dating plight of autistic men (which is why I was quoted), afterwards Aella implied that I was ‘outsourcing my agency’ at men, and complained to show i was sufficiently attractive and had enough status to perform rejections
Brodski is a coward who didn’t have the guts to address me directly and instead wrote this passive aggresive garbage which EQUATES VIOLENT RAPISTS AND VICTIMS
what I talked about is what women who participate in nightlife have to worry about, and i could care less what sheltered berkeley philosophers have to say about whether my concerns are reasonable or not
sheltered men policing what a woman is allowed to feel in response to threats is the definition of patriarchy, misogyny, and a lot of other things rife within Rationalism
Vibecamp has ignored the fact that I was sexually assaulted for over 2 years, Brooke Bowman promised followup that never happened, that is the definition of being dismissive
I am very happy to be the person calling out the massive systemic problem in rationalism and EA, along with other brave women who have to deal with incredible amounts of gaslighting and dehumanization as Fran mentioned in her article and again could care less what Brodski or you have to say about it
I run a music festival and i am held accountable to its safety in ways Lighthaven and Vibecamp will never be subject to and the consequence free environment that exists for Rationalists is exactly why sexual harassment and assault happens
if you don’t believe anything I have to say, you can instead look at what has been uncovered about men in Rationalism here https://archive.ph/xhV0S, and I do know for a fact from talking to journalists that other women are afraid to come forward and name abusers because it will impact their AI career prospects
so in short nathan please miss me with your mansplaining, rationalists think they are clever enough to keep this behaviour up but one day they will pick the wrong target and more women than I will be there to back up what she says
Ivy — I haven’t yet had the chance to read this thread in detail nor the linked article (disclaimer that I have not opened the linked article nor read it yet), I’ve only been able to give the thread a full first pass. Thus, I felt I should refrain from commenting. But then, I realised if I don’t leave something now, there’s a strong chance I won’t remember to come back to this. And one of the very dynamics I find sad is: victims who discuss their experiences and logical arguments publicly often resonate with so many readers, but this is not visible because those readers are likely moving quickly and won’t necessarily wade into a public discourse.
So, to echo some of the points you’ve already raised: Hypothetically, let’s say there is a person who fits the quoted description of a “trauma junkie.” The idea that we should have to engage seriously with a subsequent argument that, at some point, equates the need to “isolate” such a person with the need to “isolate” a rapist is deeply worrying. Rape is a profound and violent removal of one’s autonomy and humanity that results in incredibly high instances of PTSD. Rape is a felony charge, and for good reason. Often times in these discussion, it’s missed that some people (i.e., likely the author of the linked post, based on the quoted sections) simply do not think rape is “that” bad and thus they find it congruent to make such careless statements or equations. But in that case, I’m left unable to engage productively because that’s an irreconcilable and fundamental disagreement. I think rape is horrifying and the act of committing rape is horrifying, in quite literally any “context.” I don’t think rape is anything remotely close to as bad as the behaviour of a described “trauma junkie,” though I agree that the described “trauma junkie” behaviour is bad and anti social.
I’d also like to say, there is a terrible circular logic that so often crops up when it comes to using trauma to discredit victims. I wish more people would read about trauma and understand its affects with more clarity and nuance. If Person A breaks Person B’s leg, we do not suddenly discredit Person B as “hysterical” in their perspective because of the pain of their broken leg. Because, of course their leg is broken. Person A broke it. But, if Person A assaults Person B, resulting in trauma, we use the affects and pain of that trauma to discredit Person B so readily as a society. If we decide that victims are unreliable, by the nature of them being victims and not their actual individual behaviour, then we’re both putting the entire class of victims in an impossible situation and we’re falling back to approx. 1950s sexist talking points. Sometimes, I feel so stuck having to argue at a level I simply disagree with. On a meta level, I want us to fundamentally take abuse seriously and understand the actual literature, which shows that sexual assault is incredibly common, whereas false reports have happened and can, but they are not a prevalent issue at this time and no where near as rampant as reported rates of assault.
On a purely personal level: I teared up at the idea of disclosing my sexual assault and being met with the response you’ve faced. I’m so so beyond sorry. I feel like as a victim, there’s this pressure to have to discuss your own assault in a completely detached, third-party observational, logical way. We rarely get to include our very real emotions or ask for extra respect, sensitivity, and awareness given the circumstances, with no actual expectation that people change the substance of their arguments. But some demonstration of compassion should be the very baseline expectation, and I find anything less cruel and unproductive. Otherwise, it makes conversations terribly asymmetric: outside observers can simply make their arguments with no personal stake, while the victim has to make both airtight arguments (fine) and somehow try to hold the very visceral lived experience of what happened and how it affected them and lives in them. So anyways, I just wanted to express a bit of clear, public support that the parts I was able to read thus far made utter sense and I can’t imagine what you’ve had to carry or how disgusting it must have been to read the quotes you’ve shared, and I’m sorry and my heart is with you.
[Edit: I engaged critically with some of the quoted passages, but I want to be clear that I think writing such quoted passages in passive response to a disclosure of sexual assault is cruel and disgusting in my personal opinion.]
I think you have a good point that if a person behaves in a traumatized way, that’s evidence they are an assault victim. On the other hand, it’s also possible to go too far in the opposite direction, where it becomes socially unacceptable to disagree with the traumatized person in any way, and we have policies set by traumatized people who aren’t thinking clearly.
I’m not claiming that EA is at this point necessarily. But I do believe this possibility is part of what motivates skepticism towards trauma victims. I expect with some creative thinking it is possible to come up with a compromise which achieves both of the important objectives here.
Of course it is socially acceptable to disagree with “traumatized” people in EA. I do it all the time. It is very easy for me to say, “I completely understand why you want that, but here is why I disagree,” and then I lay out my arguments. You’ll find that “traumatized” people are just people, capable of conversation and critical thinking. Trauma is just one type of challenge humans have to navigate, but there are many challenges.
The world is not split into traumatized unclear thinkers and non-traumatised clear thinkers. Many people think unclearly, all the time, for a variety of reasons. It is important to learn how to communicate with different people, which is effectively what your comment is saying. We all have emotions. Trauma itself is not a binary thing where you either “are” traumatised or “are not”. Trauma as a diagnosis is a collection of symptoms which crossover with many other diagnoses, such as generalised anxiety, and so on.
Of course there are compromises, society at large is already making these compromises and many people are already thinking creatively about these issues. That is why we have things like laws, policies, codes of conduct, HR, social norms, and so on and so forth.
Of course it is socially acceptable to disagree with “traumatized” people in EA.
Well you previously wrote:
I think writing such quoted passages in passive response to a disclosure of sexual assault is cruel and disgusting in my personal opinion
Insofar as others share this opinion of yours, it won’t be socially acceptable to express those particular disagreements.
Assuming we are talking about the Any Community That Tolerates Trauma Junkies Is Unsafe For Everyone Else post, it’s not something I would’ve predicted in advance would be considered “cruel and disgusting”. So it remains the case that I personally have some uncertainty regarding what opinions will be considered “cruel and disgusting”, to the point where it seems a bit safer socially to just avoid expressing much of any disagreement at all.
i wholeheartedly agree with what you’ve said here, i’ve unfortunately had experience with sexual violence from all angles: a friend of mine was the woman who finally got the story of Marc Emery’s sex pestery published, I’ve supported other women at events and sometimes recounting what happened, even to myself is so surreal
there are failures of inexperience and failures by choice, and I am very tired of hearing about victims being held to documentarian standards whilst the people around them quietly contribute to their social death behind closed doors in addition to everything else they have to go through
it’s been a difficult few years knowing i wasn’t even worth a direct ‘we don’t believe you and we’re not going to do anything’ from either community or event, and i really can’t tell you how much this comment means to me <3
I don’t think you accurately summarize the article. For example, you say he describes a trauma junkie as: “Anyone sharing their trauma or cautioning about causing trauma.”
This is not how he describes the concept. Instead a trauma junkie is someone who:
“Bends every gathering and interaction into a hunt for the problematic elements or people within it.”
“Loudly centers themselves as leading the charge to making a place or group or scene “safe” for everyone.”
“[Recasts] normal interactions as traumatic ordeals so there will be a victimization to rally against.”
I do think it would be genuinely concerning if prominent rationalists were generally dismissive of sexual assault and harassment. But that’s not what the article is about. Instead, the author is dismissing people who describe “brief awkward conversations” as traumatic.
Hi Nathan, thanks for the additional contextualisation.
I want to make it very clear that I am not against a productive and reasoned discussion on how best to manage trauma discussions within a social group, including on the possibility of someone claiming to be a victim in bad faith. But this article never gets to be that because it only considers the one scenario where the supposed victim is acting in bad faith.
The problem is precisely that the author never really considers the possibility that the “trauma junkies” might in fact be acting in good faith, until the very last section of the article (‘word of caution’), at which point he remarkably still advocates for banishing them from the group just like you would a ‘violent psychotic’ or ‘compulsive rapist’. There is no consideration of tradeoffs, e.g. what effect this may have on the so-called ‘trauma junky’ if they turned out to be sincere . Of course, we know that in such cases, the effects are quite disastrous, and you can read Fran’s recent post CEA’s response to sexual harassment to see what that’s like. So the article by Eneasz Brodski is not really an interesting, nuanced, substantiated and earnest discussion on a delicate topic, such as one that might be produced using a scout’s mindset, or indeed rationalist ideals. For an example of something that I think is exactly that, read Fran’s post, and you will find in it concrete examples where people who do think of themselves as rationalists and Effective Altruists did make mistakes that resulted in the effective dismissal of a serious case of sexual harassment. She explains the situation with a remarkable amount of calm and detachment and did so out of a genuine desire to see how similar situations can be handled better in the future.
Well… You may now be concerned.
Aside from the examples from Fran above, you might be interested in this article, which lists “views discussed involve racism, sexism, fascism, and other troubling ideologies” expressed at an EA afterparty. Full disclosure, I haven’t read this article in full, and I’m not fully briefed on the whole Manifold/Manifest drama from 2024, but from a brief skim the article seems to list quite a few ‘interesting’ statements from a few prominent rationalists (most of whom I must admit I had never heard of because I am quite new to learning about this… and don’t really feel a huge compulsion to explore, tbh). See for example this excerpt from Richard Hanania’s article The EA Movement Will Be Anti-Woke or Die:
(Again, full disclosure, haven’t particularly felt that keen to read the full article, so I haven’t. I don’t know who this Richard Hanania is in much detail but he clearly is quite involved in the EA / Rationalist community).
These dangerous rationalisations of harmful -ims are not surprising to me as I don’t place ‘rationalists’ a cut above any other category of people in their ability to reason and avoid bias. Even when one tries really hard not to make a mistake, everyone makes mistakes and no one is above making a mistake. But mistakes can have very real negative ethical consequences, which is why I advocated for calling them out early, in a genuine, respectful, and earnest manner in order for us to all flourish as a group. ⭐️
lol how did i know men would be showing up to defend this disgusting article
from details in it i know it is about what i wrote about being sexually assaulted and cornered in a music venue at Vibecamp 2
after I brought it up at VC2 decompression somewhere there interrupted to talk about the dating plight of autistic men (which is why I was quoted), afterwards Aella implied that I was ‘outsourcing my agency’ at men, and complained to show i was sufficiently attractive and had enough status to perform rejections
Brodski is a coward who didn’t have the guts to address me directly and instead wrote this passive aggresive garbage which EQUATES VIOLENT RAPISTS AND VICTIMS
what I talked about is what women who participate in nightlife have to worry about, and i could care less what sheltered berkeley philosophers have to say about whether my concerns are reasonable or not
sheltered men policing what a woman is allowed to feel in response to threats is the definition of patriarchy, misogyny, and a lot of other things rife within Rationalism
Vibecamp has ignored the fact that I was sexually assaulted for over 2 years, Brooke Bowman promised followup that never happened, that is the definition of being dismissive
I am very happy to be the person calling out the massive systemic problem in rationalism and EA, along with other brave women who have to deal with incredible amounts of gaslighting and dehumanization as Fran mentioned in her article and again could care less what Brodski or you have to say about it
I run a music festival and i am held accountable to its safety in ways Lighthaven and Vibecamp will never be subject to and the consequence free environment that exists for Rationalists is exactly why sexual harassment and assault happens
if you don’t believe anything I have to say, you can instead look at what has been uncovered about men in Rationalism here https://archive.ph/xhV0S, and I do know for a fact from talking to journalists that other women are afraid to come forward and name abusers because it will impact their AI career prospects
so in short nathan please miss me with your mansplaining, rationalists think they are clever enough to keep this behaviour up but one day they will pick the wrong target and more women than I will be there to back up what she says
Ivy — I haven’t yet had the chance to read this thread in detail nor the linked article (disclaimer that I have not opened the linked article nor read it yet), I’ve only been able to give the thread a full first pass. Thus, I felt I should refrain from commenting. But then, I realised if I don’t leave something now, there’s a strong chance I won’t remember to come back to this. And one of the very dynamics I find sad is: victims who discuss their experiences and logical arguments publicly often resonate with so many readers, but this is not visible because those readers are likely moving quickly and won’t necessarily wade into a public discourse.
So, to echo some of the points you’ve already raised: Hypothetically, let’s say there is a person who fits the quoted description of a “trauma junkie.” The idea that we should have to engage seriously with a subsequent argument that, at some point, equates the need to “isolate” such a person with the need to “isolate” a rapist is deeply worrying. Rape is a profound and violent removal of one’s autonomy and humanity that results in incredibly high instances of PTSD. Rape is a felony charge, and for good reason. Often times in these discussion, it’s missed that some people (i.e., likely the author of the linked post, based on the quoted sections) simply do not think rape is “that” bad and thus they find it congruent to make such careless statements or equations. But in that case, I’m left unable to engage productively because that’s an irreconcilable and fundamental disagreement. I think rape is horrifying and the act of committing rape is horrifying, in quite literally any “context.” I don’t think rape is anything remotely close to as bad as the behaviour of a described “trauma junkie,” though I agree that the described “trauma junkie” behaviour is bad and anti social.
I’d also like to say, there is a terrible circular logic that so often crops up when it comes to using trauma to discredit victims. I wish more people would read about trauma and understand its affects with more clarity and nuance. If Person A breaks Person B’s leg, we do not suddenly discredit Person B as “hysterical” in their perspective because of the pain of their broken leg. Because, of course their leg is broken. Person A broke it. But, if Person A assaults Person B, resulting in trauma, we use the affects and pain of that trauma to discredit Person B so readily as a society. If we decide that victims are unreliable, by the nature of them being victims and not their actual individual behaviour, then we’re both putting the entire class of victims in an impossible situation and we’re falling back to approx. 1950s sexist talking points. Sometimes, I feel so stuck having to argue at a level I simply disagree with. On a meta level, I want us to fundamentally take abuse seriously and understand the actual literature, which shows that sexual assault is incredibly common, whereas false reports have happened and can, but they are not a prevalent issue at this time and no where near as rampant as reported rates of assault.
On a purely personal level: I teared up at the idea of disclosing my sexual assault and being met with the response you’ve faced. I’m so so beyond sorry. I feel like as a victim, there’s this pressure to have to discuss your own assault in a completely detached, third-party observational, logical way. We rarely get to include our very real emotions or ask for extra respect, sensitivity, and awareness given the circumstances, with no actual expectation that people change the substance of their arguments. But some demonstration of compassion should be the very baseline expectation, and I find anything less cruel and unproductive. Otherwise, it makes conversations terribly asymmetric: outside observers can simply make their arguments with no personal stake, while the victim has to make both airtight arguments (fine) and somehow try to hold the very visceral lived experience of what happened and how it affected them and lives in them. So anyways, I just wanted to express a bit of clear, public support that the parts I was able to read thus far made utter sense and I can’t imagine what you’ve had to carry or how disgusting it must have been to read the quotes you’ve shared, and I’m sorry and my heart is with you.
[Edit: I engaged critically with some of the quoted passages, but I want to be clear that I think writing such quoted passages in passive response to a disclosure of sexual assault is cruel and disgusting in my personal opinion.]
I think you have a good point that if a person behaves in a traumatized way, that’s evidence they are an assault victim. On the other hand, it’s also possible to go too far in the opposite direction, where it becomes socially unacceptable to disagree with the traumatized person in any way, and we have policies set by traumatized people who aren’t thinking clearly.
I’m not claiming that EA is at this point necessarily. But I do believe this possibility is part of what motivates skepticism towards trauma victims. I expect with some creative thinking it is possible to come up with a compromise which achieves both of the important objectives here.
Of course it is socially acceptable to disagree with “traumatized” people in EA. I do it all the time. It is very easy for me to say, “I completely understand why you want that, but here is why I disagree,” and then I lay out my arguments. You’ll find that “traumatized” people are just people, capable of conversation and critical thinking. Trauma is just one type of challenge humans have to navigate, but there are many challenges.
The world is not split into traumatized unclear thinkers and non-traumatised clear thinkers. Many people think unclearly, all the time, for a variety of reasons. It is important to learn how to communicate with different people, which is effectively what your comment is saying. We all have emotions. Trauma itself is not a binary thing where you either “are” traumatised or “are not”. Trauma as a diagnosis is a collection of symptoms which crossover with many other diagnoses, such as generalised anxiety, and so on.
Of course there are compromises, society at large is already making these compromises and many people are already thinking creatively about these issues. That is why we have things like laws, policies, codes of conduct, HR, social norms, and so on and so forth.
Well you previously wrote:
Insofar as others share this opinion of yours, it won’t be socially acceptable to express those particular disagreements.
Assuming we are talking about the Any Community That Tolerates Trauma Junkies Is Unsafe For Everyone Else post, it’s not something I would’ve predicted in advance would be considered “cruel and disgusting”. So it remains the case that I personally have some uncertainty regarding what opinions will be considered “cruel and disgusting”, to the point where it seems a bit safer socially to just avoid expressing much of any disagreement at all.
truly, thank you Fran <3
i wholeheartedly agree with what you’ve said here, i’ve unfortunately had experience with sexual violence from all angles: a friend of mine was the woman who finally got the story of Marc Emery’s sex pestery published, I’ve supported other women at events and sometimes recounting what happened, even to myself is so surreal
there are failures of inexperience and failures by choice, and I am very tired of hearing about victims being held to documentarian standards whilst the people around them quietly contribute to their social death behind closed doors in addition to everything else they have to go through
it’s been a difficult few years knowing i wasn’t even worth a direct ‘we don’t believe you and we’re not going to do anything’ from either community or event, and i really can’t tell you how much this comment means to me <3